Thanks to both of you for a careful and thoughtful read! Indeed, those two paragraphs capture some of the most important points that I would most want to highlight to RIPE.

I have to say, when I started to look at the problem, I was surprised to find that it entailed trade-offs far more complex than I would have guessed.

I would also offer these bits:

When one considers product sustainability, one must reflect on effects over the entire lifetime of the product: not only over its period of usage (the part that we mainly see as consumers), but also over its period of production, and its end of life period (typical characterised by disposal or by some form of recycling or re-use), as depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The typical product life cycle

Source: Bruegel
When a product wears out or is discarded for some other reason ..., it typically needs to be replaced. Extending the lifetime of a product tends to reduce the frequency with which goods of a given class need to be replaced. This results in reduced consumption of materials and energy that would otherwise go into production, which is environmentally positive.
If goods last longer, then they are less often disposed of, which likewise tends to be positive. There are various forms of recycling, remanufacturing and re-use that can serve to mitigate the cost of end of life, but reducing the frequency with which products go to end of life tends to be even better. Extending product lifetimes consequently tends to be positive for the environment in the end of life phase as well.
The impact of extended lifetimes during the usage phase is not necessarily environmentally positive – in fact, it can often be negative for the environment. Products such as automobiles and washing machines are becoming more efficient over time. Driving a given number of kilometres with a newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle generates less greenhouse gas (GHG) than driving the same number of kilometres with an older, less fuel-efficient vehicle. When we extend the lifetime of these products, it means that older, less efficient products stay in service longer, consuming more energy and therefore generating more GHGs.
Practical assessments as to whether there is a public policy rationale for prolonging product lifetime consequently need to carefully weigh a trade-off: Do the environmental gains during the production and end of life phases outweigh possible environmental costs during the usage phase for this particular product at this point in time?

And this:

It is easy to say that all batteries (and screens) should be replaceable, but there are legitimate reasons to prefer non-replaceable components, some of which also indirectly benefit consumers. User-replaceable batteries are not the only way to ensure that the phone can be used for its full potential lifetime. Other solutions are possible, and are to some extent being implemented.

With best regards,
Scott

On 02/09/2020 15:18, Michael J. Oghia wrote:

Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair.

Best,

-Michael

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:

J Scott Marcus <scott@scottmarcus.com> wrote:
    > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study of mine on behalf
    > of the European Parliament.

    > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How can the EU product
    > safety and compliance framework help promote product durability and tackle
    > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more sustainable products, and
    > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”, study for the IMCO
    > Committee of the European Parliament.
    > https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf

For the rest who did not read it yet:

"Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there is good
reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are replaced (1)
because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user; or (2)
because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the user, or (3)
because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the
software. "

with the caution that:

"These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of product
lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which,
interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan – might
prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any
prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight delay in the
take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus potential
delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. "

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [